UNION CITY, NJ — How long will the Union City Police Department continue to sideline two officers after the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office reportedly found no wrongdoing?

Detective Jorge Haber and Officer David Tafur have reportedly spent over a year on modified duty, assigned to dispatch rather than their regular law enforcement responsibilities, following allegations that confidential police body-camera footage and political information were leaked to investigative journalist Leroy Truth, known for exposing corruption in Union City.

The investigation reportedly included the seizure of both officers’ personal cell phones pursuant to a warrant. Yet, according to information provided to this publication, the Attorney General’s Office concluded just couple months ago that neither officer engaged in wrongdoing.

So why are they still being punished through continued modified-duty assignments?

The matter has reportedly returned to the Union City Police Department’s Internal Affairs Unit, where Chief Walter Laurencio and department leadership have yet to restore the officers to regular duty. The continued delay also raises concerns about Detective Haber’s future promotional opportunities, in which currently, Det. Haber is placed on the Sgt promotional list.

The political implications are especially troubling. Both officers have reportedly been viewed as political opponents of Mayor Brian Stack.

Even more concerning, Officer Tafur recently testified against Stack in a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by a retired Union City police officer. According to judicial records and the verdict by the Jury, Stack and a former police chief were found liable in both their official and individual capacities.

The question is unavoidable: Is Union City conducting a legitimate administrative review, or using Internal Affairs and modified-duty assignments as instruments of political retaliation?

If the Attorney General’s Office found no wrongdoing, Chief Laurencio and Mayor Stack owe the public an explanation for why these officers remain sidelined.

An officer’s political views or testimony against City leadership should never determine that officer’s career opportunities.

Union City residents deserve accountability—not a police department where political loyalty appears to matter more than fairness, due process, and professional integrity.

The post NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL FINDS NO WRONGDOING FOR TWO UNION CITY POLICE OFFICERS. THE CITY CONTINUES RETALIATION appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

UNION CITY, NUEVA JERSEY — Después de 26 años como alcalde, Brian P. Stack aparentemente ha perfeccionado una habilidad política: culpar a todos los demás cuando algo sale mal.

Tras la demanda por discriminación presentada por Juan Estrella, en la que ocho miembros del jurado declararon unánimemente a Stack responsable de ayudar y facilitar la discriminación contra un oficial de policía de Union City, el alcalde ha emprendido lo que parece ser una desesperada campaña política para controlar los daños a su imagen.

En lugar de asumir responsabilidad o abordar las conclusiones del jurado, Stack ha recurrido a sus seguidores políticos, declaraciones públicas, cartas enviadas por todo el distrito y un anuncio político pagado de tres páginas en el periódico hispano El Especialito para defenderse.

¿Su mensaje? El oficial está equivocado, sus enemigos políticos son los responsables y, de alguna manera, Brian Stack es la verdadera víctima.

Pero aquí está la pregunta: ¿Alguien ha escuchado alguna vez a Brian Stack admitir que se equivocó en algo?

UN ALCALDE QUE NO PUEDE ACEPTAR EL VEREDICTO DE UN JURADO

El jurado otorgó a Juan Estrella 853,000 dólares en compensación por daños, mientras que la determinación de posibles daños punitivos continúa pendiente.

Sin embargo, la carta de Stack no reconoce ninguna conducta indebida. En cambio, ataca la credibilidad del oficial, cuestiona sus motivos y describe la demanda como una oportunidad para obtener dinero, comparándola con un cajero automático.

Aparentemente, cuando un jurado falla en contra de Brian Stack, el problema no es su conducta. El problema son todos los demás.

Y la propia carta del alcalde plantea más preguntas de las que responde.

Stack afirma que el historial disciplinario de Estrella impidió su ascenso. Sin embargo, la misma transcripción judicial que Stack publicó incluye el testimonio bajo juramento de Estrella, quien declaró que la exjefa de Policía Nichelle Luster no quería que fuera ascendido y que otros supervisores con historiales disciplinarios más graves sí habían recibido ascensos.

¿Por qué destacar el testimonio que favorece su defensa mientras evita abordar el testimonio que la contradice?

Incluso las fechas están equivocadas. La carta de Stack identifica el 6 de septiembre de 2026 como la fecha del testimonio, mientras que la transcripción judicial indica el 1 de septiembre.

Para alguien que preside el Comité Judicial del Senado de Nueva Jersey, la precisión sobre los procedimientos judiciales no debería ser opcional.

SEGUIDORES POLÍTICOS, EMPLEOS GUBERNAMENTALES Y LAS PROPIAS PALABRAS DE STACK

Quizás la declaración más reveladora de la carta de Stack sea su descripción de la familia de Estrella:

“Ellos eran seguidores políticos; ayudé a muchos de ellos con empleos y otros asuntos, como trato de hacer por todos”.

Léanlo otra vez.

Seguidores políticos. Ayuda para conseguir empleos. Todo en la misma oración.

El artículo sostiene que esa declaración demuestra favoritismo político y, ciertamente, plantea preguntas legítimas sobre cómo se distribuyen las oportunidades de empleo público en Union City.

¿Cuántos empleados municipales y de la Junta de Educación son seguidores políticos de Brian Stack? ¿Cuántos fueron contratados estrictamente por sus cualificaciones? ¿Cuántos tienen conexiones políticas?

¿Y qué ocurre con las personas políticamente conectadas que ocupan puestos administrativos bien remunerados, incluido el secretario de la Junta de Educación, Justin Mercado?

Sus cualificaciones, historial de nombramientos y remuneración financiada con fondos públicos merecen ser examinados, no simplemente presumidos.

Los empleos pagados con dinero de los contribuyentes deberían otorgarse por méritos y cualificaciones, no por lealtad política.

Quizás haya llegado el momento de comparar los registros de contribuciones a campañas políticas, las nóminas públicas y los expedientes de contratación gubernamental.

LA EXCUSA ELECTORAL QUE NO TIENE ABSOLUTAMENTE NINGÚN SENTIDO

Stack también sugiere que la demanda tuvo motivaciones políticas debido a su próxima campaña de reelección al Senado.

Pero existe un pequeño detalle inconveniente.

Estrella presentó su demanda el 20 de abril de 2022. Las próximas elecciones de Stack al Senado serán en noviembre de 2027.

¿Se supone que los residentes deben creer que Estrella organizó una demanda con cinco años de anticipación, controló el calendario judicial y consiguió que el jurado emitiera su veredicto en un momento políticamente inconveniente?

¿Cuántas elecciones han ocurrido desde que comenzó esta demanda?

El sistema judicial no funciona de acuerdo con el calendario electoral de Brian Stack.

Su intento de presentar este caso como una conspiración electoral es un insulto a la inteligencia del público.

¿UNA REPENTINA CELEBRACIÓN DE APOYO DOMINICANO?

Después del veredicto, Stack también celebró un evento de la Herencia Hispana que incluyó demostraciones públicas de apoyo político, con pancartas que destacaban su relación con la comunidad dominicana.

No hay absolutamente nada malo en celebrar la herencia hispana o dominicana.

Pero el momento en que se realizó merece ser examinado.

Después de que un jurado declarara a Stack responsable de ayudar y facilitar la discriminación contra un oficial dominicano, las demostraciones públicas de apoyo dominicano repentinamente adquirieron un importante valor político.

¿Fue simplemente una celebración cultural o fue otro intento de reparar su deteriorada imagen política?

Según el artículo, los asistentes parecían ser principalmente empleados de la Junta de Educación y seguidores que habrían recibido instrucciones de asistir, como supuestamente ocurre en otros eventos políticos organizados por Brian Stack.

El momento y los mensajes políticos son imposibles de ignorar.

Tener amigos, familiares y seguidores dominicanos no demuestra que una persona sea incapaz de discriminar contra un empleado dominicano.

Un jurado ya examinó las pruebas y emitió su veredicto.

AHORA SUS CARTAS HAN PROVOCADO OTRA CONTROVERSIA JUDICIAL

El 2 de octubre de 2026, los abogados que representan a Juan Estrella presentaron una solicitud ante el tribunal expresando serias preocupaciones sobre las cartas enviadas masivamente por Stack.

¿El problema?

El jurado todavía permanecía constituido para considerar los daños punitivos mientras Stack distribuía su versión de la demanda por todo el Distrito Legislativo 33.

Los abogados de Estrella solicitaron una investigación para determinar si algún miembro del jurado recibió las cartas y si los abogados de la defensa participaron en su preparación o distribución.

También cuestionaron declaraciones de la carta que calificaron como inexactas o engañosas.

La presentación judicial no demuestra que los jurados hayan estado expuestos a las cartas ni que se haya cometido alguna conducta indebida. Tampoco documenta que se haya emitido una orden judicial para detener su distribución.

Sin embargo, el hecho de que estas cartas provocaran una solicitud formal de investigación judicial es significativo.

Piénsenlo.

En lugar de permitir que los procedimientos judiciales restantes continuaran sin controversias adicionales, los mensajes políticos de Stack se han convertido en otro asunto que se le ha solicitado examinar al juez.

¿En qué momento el control de daños políticos se vuelve más importante para Brian Stack que respetar el proceso judicial?

LOS CONTRIBUYENTES SIGUEN PAGANDO MIENTRAS STACK CONTINÚA DEFENDIÉNDOSE

Stack se queja de que la demanda representa un gasto para los residentes de Union City.

Entonces, quizás debería explicar exactamente cuánto dinero de los contribuyentes se ha gastado defendiendo este caso.

¿Cuánto se ha pagado a abogados externos? ¿Cuánto costará una apelación? ¿Qué parte del veredicto podría terminar pagándose con fondos públicos o seguros? ¿Y cuánto más podrían agregar los procedimientos pendientes relacionados con daños punitivos?

La exposición económica exacta de los contribuyentes todavía debe determinarse mediante registros públicos.

Pero los residentes merecen una explicación completa.

Y ya que estamos hablando de responsabilidad, consideremos cuántos cargos de influencia ocupa Brian Stack.

Alcalde. Director de Seguridad Pública. Senador estatal. Presidente del Comité Judicial del Senado. Líder político de Union City First.

Sin embargo, en su carta defendiéndose de un veredicto por discriminación policial, se identifica simplemente como alcalde.

Convenientemente, el título de Director de Seguridad Pública —el cargo más directamente relacionado con la supervisión del Departamento de Policía— no aparece en el encabezado de la carta.

¿Coincidencia? Quizás. Pero ciertamente merece señalarse.

Tal vez el problema de otorgarle tanta autoridad a un solo político sea que nadie a su alrededor esté dispuesto a decirle cuándo se equivoca.

VEINTISÉIS AÑOS COMO ALCALDE. ¿NI UNA SOLA ADMISIÓN DE ERROR?

Brian Stack tiene todo el derecho legal de impugnar el veredicto y defenderse.

Pero existe una diferencia entre defenderse ante un tribunal y realizar una campaña política para desacreditar a alguien que obtuvo un veredicto favorable de un jurado.

Su carta presenta a sus enemigos políticos como responsables. Sus seguidores se apresuran a defenderlo. Su organización política distribuye sus explicaciones. Y se espera que los residentes acepten que todos los demás están equivocados.

Mientras tanto, el hecho más importante permanece sin cambios:

Ocho miembros del jurado declararon unánimemente a Brian Stack responsable de ayudar y facilitar la discriminación.

Ninguna carta política cambia eso.

Ningún anuncio en un periódico cambia eso.

Ninguna celebración ni respaldo público cambia eso.

Stack puede haber pasado 26 años construyendo una maquinaria política, pero el poder político no convierte a nadie en infalible.

Union City necesita un liderazgo cualificado e independiente, no un sistema en el que una sola persona ocupe múltiples posiciones de autoridad mientras se rodea de lealtad política.

Los residentes deberían exigir transparencia, supervisión independiente, contrataciones públicas justas y una explicación completa de los gastos relacionados con este litigio.

Y deberían guardar cada carta política que Stack envíe. Colóquenlas una al lado de la otra y busquen las palabras que parecen imposibles de pronunciar para él:

“Me equivoqué”.

Stack firmó su carta:

“Tu amigo”.

Bueno, alcalde Stack, los verdaderos amigos se dicen la verdad.

Un jurado lo declaró responsable. Sus seguidores políticos no pueden anular ese veredicto con aplausos. Y los residentes de Union City merecen responsabilidad y rendición de cuentas, no otra excusa.

Veintiséis años como alcalde y, de alguna manera, Brian Stack nunca se equivoca. Qué curioso que los contribuyentes todavía puedan terminar pagando por todas esas ocasiones en las que él insiste que tenía razón.

Comentario editorial basado en el veredicto del jurado de septiembre de 2026 en el caso Estrella, la carta política publicada por Brian Stack, la edición del 2 al 8 de octubre de 2026 de El Especialito y la solicitud judicial del 2 de octubre de 2026 en Juan Estrella contra la Ciudad de Union City, expediente HUD-L-000064-23. Las preguntas sobre favoritismo político, motivaciones electorales y gastos públicos se presentan como asuntos que requieren mayor investigación.

The post EL DESESPERADO CONTROL DE DAÑOS DE BRIAN STACK: UN JURADO LO DECLARÓ RESPONSABLE, PERO EL ALCALDE TODAVÍA SE NIEGA A ADMITIR QUE SE EQUIVOCÓ appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

Following the Juan Estrella discrimination lawsuit, in which eight jurors unanimously found Stack liable for aiding and abetting discrimination against a Union City police officer, the mayor has launched what appears to be a desperate political damage-control campaign.

Instead of accepting responsibility or addressing the jury’s findings, Stack has relied on political supporters, public statements, districtwide mailings, and a three-page paid advertisement in the Hispanic newspaper El Especialito to defend himself.

His message? The officer is wrong, his political enemies are responsible, and somehow Brian Stack is the real victim.

But here’s the question: Has anyone ever heard Brian Stack admit he was wrong about anything?

A MAYOR WHO CANNOT ACCEPT A JURY’S VERDICT

The jury awarded Juan Estrella $853,000 in compensatory damages, with punitive damages still pending.

Yet Stack’s letter offers no acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Instead, he attacks the officer’s credibility, questions his motives, and describes the lawsuit as a financial opportunity, comparing it to an ATM machine.

Apparently, when a jury rules against Brian Stack, the problem isn’t his conduct. It’s everyone else.

And the mayor’s own letter raises more questions than it answers.

Stack claims Estrella’s disciplinary record prevented his promotion. But the very court transcript Stack published includes Estrella’s sworn testimony that former Police Chief Nichelle Luster did not want him promoted and that other supervisors with more serious disciplinary histories had received promotions.

Why highlight the testimony favorable to your defense while failing to address the testimony that challenges it?

Even the dates are wrong. Stack’s letter identifies September 6, 2026, as the testimony date, while the transcript identifies September 1.

For someone who chairs the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee, accuracy about court proceedings should not be optional.

POLITICAL SUPPORTERS, GOVERNMENT JOBS, AND STACK’S OWN WORDS

Perhaps the most revealing statement in Stack’s letter is his description of Estrella’s family:

“They were political supporters – I helped many of them with employment and other matters like I try to do for everyone.”

Read that again.

Political supporters. Employment assistance. All in the same sentence.

That statement alone proves political patronage, and certainly raises legitimate questions about how public employment opportunities are distributed in Union City.

How many municipal employees and Board of Education employees are political supporters of Brian Stack? How many were hired based strictly on qualifications? How many have political connections?

And what about politically connected individuals holding well-paid administrative positions, including Board of Education Secretary Justin Mercado? His qualifications, appointment history, and publicly funded compensation deserve examination, not assumptions.

Taxpayer-funded employment should be based on qualifications, not political loyalty.

Perhaps it is time to compare campaign contribution records, public payrolls, and government hiring records.

THE ELECTION EXCUSE THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE

Stack also suggests that the lawsuit was politically motivated because of his upcoming Senate reelection.

There’s just one inconvenient fact.

Estrella filed his lawsuit on April 20, 2022. Stack’s next Senate election is November 2027.

Are residents supposed to believe Estrella somehow orchestrated a lawsuit five years in advance, controlled the court calendar, and arranged for a jury verdict to arrive at a politically inconvenient moment?

How many elections have occurred since this lawsuit began?

The court system does not operate according to Brian Stack’s campaign schedule.

His attempt to portray this case as an election conspiracy is an insult to the intelligence of the public.

A SUDDEN CELEBRATION OF DOMINICAN SUPPORT?

Following the verdict, Stack also held a Hispanic Heritage celebration featuring public displays of political support, including signs emphasizing his relationship with the Dominican community.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating Hispanic or Dominican heritage.

But the timing deserves scrutiny.

After a jury found Stack liable for aiding and abetting discrimination involving a Dominican officer, public demonstrations of Dominican support suddenly became politically valuable.

Was this simply a cultural celebration, or another attempt to repair his damaged political image? Those in attendance of the event appear are mainly Board of Education employees and supporters instructed to attend as they do for every other political event hosted by Brian Stack.

The timing and political messaging are impossible to ignore.

Having Dominican friends, relatives, and supporters does not prove that someone could not have discriminated against a Dominican employee.

A jury already considered the evidence and reached its verdict.

NOW HIS MAILING HAS CREATED ANOTHER COURT CONTROVERSY

On October 2, 2026, attorneys representing Juan Estrella submitted a court application raising serious concerns about Stack’s mass mailing.

The problem?

The jury remained empaneled to consider punitive damages while Stack was distributing his version of the lawsuit throughout the 33rd Legislative District.

Estrella’s attorneys requested an investigation into whether jurors received the mailing and whether defense counsel participated in preparing or distributing it.

They also challenged statements in the letter that they characterized as inaccurate or misleading.

The filing does not establish that jurors were exposed or that misconduct occurred, and it does not document an issued cease-and-desist order. But the fact that the mailing prompted a formal request for judicial inquiry is significant.

Think about that.

Instead of allowing the remaining court proceedings to unfold without controversy, Stack’s political messaging has become another issue the judge has been asked to examine.

At what point does political damage control become more important to Brian Stack than respecting the judicial process?

THE TAXPAYERS KEEP PAYING WHILE STACK KEEPS DEFENDING HIMSELF

Stack complains that the lawsuit comes at the expense of Union City residents.

Then perhaps he should explain exactly how much taxpayer money has been spent defending this case.

How much has gone to outside attorneys? How much will an appeal cost? What portion of the verdict could ultimately be paid with public funds or insurance? And how much more could the pending punitive-damages proceedings add?

The exact taxpayer exposure remains to be established through public records.

But residents deserve a full accounting.

And while we’re discussing accountability, consider how many positions of influence Brian Stack holds.

Mayor. Public Safety Director. State Senator. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman. Political leader of Union City First.

Yet in his letter defending himself against a police discrimination verdict, he identifies himself simply as mayor.

Conveniently, the Public Safety Director title—the position most directly connected to police department oversight—is nowhere in the letter’s heading.

Coincidence? Perhaps. But it is certainly worth pointing out.

Maybe the problem with giving one politician so much authority is that nobody around him is willing to tell him when he’s wrong.

TWENTY-SIX YEARS AS MAYOR. NOT ONE ADMISSION OF ERROR?

Brian Stack has every legal right to challenge the verdict and defend himself.

But there is a difference between defending yourself in court and conducting a political campaign to discredit someone who prevailed before a jury.

His letter portrays political enemies as responsible. His supporters rush to defend him. His political organization distributes his explanation. And residents are asked to accept that everyone else is mistaken.

Meanwhile, the most important fact remains unchanged:

Eight jurors unanimously found Brian Stack liable for aiding and abetting discrimination.

No political mailing changes that.

No newspaper advertisement changes that.

No celebration or public endorsement changes that.

Stack may have spent 26 years building a political machine, but political power does not make someone infallible.

Union City needs qualified, independent leadership—not a system where one individual holds multiple positions of authority while surrounding himself with political loyalty.

Residents should demand transparency, independent oversight, fair public hiring, and a complete accounting of this litigation.

And they should save every political letter Stack sends. Put them side by side and look for the words that seem impossible for him to say:

“I was wrong.”

Stack signed his letter, “Your Friend.”

Well, Mayor Stack, real friends tell each other the truth.

A jury found you liable. Your political supporters cannot overturn that verdict with applause. And the people of Union City deserve accountability—not another excuse.

Twenty-six years as mayor, and somehow Brian Stack is never wrong. Funny how the taxpayers may still end up paying for the times he insists he was right.

⸻

Editorial commentary based on the September 2026 Estrella jury verdict, Brian Stack’s published political letter, the October 2–8, 2026 edition of El Especialito, and the October 2, 2026 court application in Juan Estrella v. City of Union City, Docket No. HUD-L-000064-23. Questions concerning political patronage, campaign motives, and public expenditures are presented as matters requiring further investigation

The post BRIAN STACK’S DESPERATE DAMAGE CONTROL: A JURY FOUND HIM LIABLE, BUT THE MAYOR STILL REFUSES TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

NORTH BERGEN, NJ — After 35 years as mayor of North Bergen, Nicholas J. Sacco is reportedly preparing to step away from the office he has held since 1991, closing an extraordinary chapter in Hudson County’s political history.

According to the New Jersey Globe, Sacco is expected to announce his resignation, marking the conclusion of a mayoral career that has spanned generations.

For the people of North Bergen, Nicholas Sacco represents more than a politician. He represents continuity, community identity, decades of public service, and a lifelong commitment to the township he helped lead.

While political opponents have attempted to diminish his influence, there is one thing they cannot erase: Nicholas Sacco’s place in North Bergen history.

A Lifetime Dedicated to North Bergen

Nicholas Sacco’s political career began long before many of today’s political figures established themselves in Hudson County.

First elected township commissioner in 1985, Sacco became mayor in 1991 and went on to serve approximately three decades in the New Jersey State Senate.

His career in education, municipal government, and state government reflects an extraordinary commitment to public service.

Under his leadership, North Bergen has emphasized neighborhood improvements, recreation, rent control, public safety, and municipal services.

His repeated electoral victories also demonstrate the longstanding political support he earned from North Bergen residents.

Sacco’s legacy is not defined by a single election or political confrontation. It is defined by decades of leadership and the community he served.

Brian Stack’s Political Ambitions Cannot Rewrite History

The contrast between Nicholas Sacco’s longstanding public service and Brian Stack’s increasingly aggressive political competition is impossible to ignore.

Stack, who serves as both Union City mayor and a state senator, has steadily expanded his political influence across Hudson County.

Following legislative redistricting, Sacco and Stack found themselves in the same Senate district. Sacco ultimately chose not to seek another Senate term in 2023.

Their political rivalry continued, including the 2025 Democratic Assembly primary, when candidates backed by Stack defeated candidates supported by Sacco.

But winning political contests does not automatically make someone a better public servant.

Political power is not the same as political greatness.

Stack’s ability to build political alliances and win elections may demonstrate political strength. It does not, by itself, establish superior leadership, greater accountability, or a more meaningful legacy.

Hudson County residents should ask whether the constant pursuit of political influence serves their interests or simply strengthens the politicians who already hold power.

When Political Rivalries Affect Public Services

One of the most troubling examples of the deteriorating relationship between North Bergen and Union City involved North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue.

In October 2024, North Bergen announced plans to leave the regional fire service. Sacco publicly connected the decision to tensions involving Stack.

The dispute raised serious questions about what happens when political relationships deteriorate between neighboring municipalities.

Emergency services, public safety, and taxpayer resources should never become bargaining chips in political confrontations.

Brian Stack should be expected to explain how his political approach promotes regional cooperation and serves residents beyond his own political organization.

The public deserves leadership focused on cooperation rather than endless battles for political advantage.

Sacco’s Legacy Belongs to North Bergen, Not Brian Stack

As Sacco prepares to leave office, some may attempt to portray his departure as another example of Stack’s growing political dominance.

Such a narrative would be an insult to the decades of service Sacco has devoted to North Bergen.

Nicholas Sacco was elected mayor long before the current political rivalry reached its height. He built a career that cannot be measured solely against Brian Stack’s political ambitions.

His legacy belongs to the generations of North Bergen residents who lived under his administration, supported his leadership, and witnessed the township’s development.

It does not belong to the political opponents who sought to defeat him.

The Difference Between Holding Power and Leaving a Legacy

Brian Stack may continue to accumulate political influence, but Hudson County residents have every right to question the concentration of power in the hands of elected officials who hold multiple influential positions.

Political dominance should never be mistaken for public accountability.

An elected official’s success should ultimately be measured by the quality of government, the protection of public services, respect for residents, and willingness to place the public interest above political rivalry.

Nicholas Sacco’s 35-year mayoral tenure stands as a remarkable achievement in New Jersey municipal government.

His anticipated departure deserves recognition, gratitude, and respect.

Hudson County Truth’s Final Word

Nicholas Sacco leaves behind a legacy that extends far beyond political organizations, election campaigns, and rivalries.

His decades of service to North Bergen cannot be erased by Brian Stack, by changing political alliances, or by the outcome of any single election.

Brian Stack may have won recent political battles, but that does not give him ownership of North Bergen’s history or the accomplishments of its longtime mayor.

Nicholas Sacco spent 35 years serving as mayor of North Bergen. Brian Stack cannot rewrite those 35 years simply by winning political contests.

The people of North Bergen will remember Nicholas Sacco for the role he played in their community.

And while political power may change hands, history cannot be rewritten to satisfy the ambitions of a political rival.

Thank you, Mayor Nicholas Sacco, for your decades of public service. Your place in North Bergen’s history is secure.

The post The End of an Era: Nicholas Sacco’s 35-Year Legacy in North Bergen appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

A Hudson County jury has delivered a major legal defeat to the City of Union City and its police department, finding them liable for discrimination against retired Union City Police Officer Juan Estrella, while also finding Mayor and Public Safety Director Brian Stack and former Police Chief Nichelle Luster liable for aiding and abetting the discrimination.

The verdict is no longer an allegation contained in a lawsuit. After hearing the evidence and competing arguments from both sides, a jury reached findings of liability.

The jury found the City of Union City and Union City Police Department liable for discrimination by a 7-1 vote. Even more strikingly, the eight-member jury unanimously found Stack and Luster liable for aiding and abetting the discrimination.

The jury found the defendants liable on all eight questions submitted to it, according to the report.

AT LEAST $853,000 — AND THE CASE ISN’T OVER

The financial consequences are already substantial.

The jury unanimously awarded Estrella $117,000 in back pay and $700,000 in lost pension payments associated with the sergeant position. It additionally awarded $36,000 for emotional distress, bringing the award reported so far to at least $853,000.

And that figure may not be the end.

The jury is expected to consider punitive damages on September 25, meaning the ultimate financial judgment could increase.

This was not simply a disagreement over whether Estrella deserved a promotion.

Estrella, who is Dominican, maintained that he was treated differently when he was bypassed for promotion to sergeant. His attorneys presented evidence concerning other officers’ disciplinary histories and argued that non-Dominican officers received promotions despite discipline that did not prevent their advancement. The defense disputed the discrimination claim, arguing that Estrella was bypassed because of his disciplinary record, an unresolved disciplinary matter and concerns about his supervisory abilities. (Hudson County View⁠)

The jury ultimately found liability.

STACK AND LUSTER WERE PERSONALLY PUT BEFORE THE JURY

Days before the verdict, the defense attempted to have Stack and Luster dismissed from the case.

Superior Court Judge Kalimah Ahmad denied that effort, concluding that the evidence presented permitted the issues concerning their alleged participation to be decided by the jury.

The jury then went further: according to Hudson County View, all eight jurors found Stack and Luster liable for aiding and abetting the discrimination.

That distinction matters politically as well as legally.

Stack is not merely Union City’s mayor. He also serves as the city’s public safety director, placing the verdict directly within an area of municipal government over which he holds significant official responsibility.

For years, Stack has built a powerful political organization in Union City. His critics have repeatedly characterized that concentration of political and governmental power as a system in which loyalty and influence play an outsized role.

Those broader accusations were not themselves adjudicated by this verdict, and they should not be confused with what the jury actually decided.

What was decided is significant enough on its own: a jury found the municipal defendants liable for discrimination and unanimously found Stack and Luster liable for aiding and abetting it.

THE TRIAL EXPOSED SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT UCPD PROMOTIONS

The trial examined years of Union City Police Department disciplinary and promotional history.

Estrella’s attorneys argued that the department’s stated reliance on his disciplinary record did not withstand scrutiny when compared with the treatment of other officers. They contended that officers with serious disciplinary histories nevertheless advanced through the department while Estrella’s record was used against him.

The defense vigorously rejected that characterization.

Defense attorney Phillip Morrow argued that New Jersey’s Civil Service “Rule of Three” permitted the department to select among eligible candidates and that Estrella’s disciplinary history, unresolved discipline and alleged supervisory shortcomings supplied legitimate reasons for bypassing him. The defense also maintained that the evidence did not establish national-origin discrimination.

The jury heard both versions.

It found against the defendants.

EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING DOMINICANS

The trial also included particularly serious testimony from Union City Police Officer David Tafur, who testified that he heard Luster make a derogatory statement referring to Dominicans as “animals.”

Luster emphatically denied making the statement and testified that such a remark would be contrary to her beliefs. The allegation therefore remained disputed testimony rather than an independently established fact.

Nevertheless, the testimony formed part of the broader evidentiary record the jury heard before reaching its verdict.

THIS VERDICT SHOULD FORCE UNION CITY TO ANSWER HARD QUESTIONS

For Union City residents and employees, the implications extend beyond one retired officer’s damages award.

When a municipality and its police department are found liable for employment discrimination, and the mayor/public safety director and former police chief are simultaneously found liable for aiding and abetting that discrimination, legitimate questions arise about oversight, accountability, promotional practices and the institutional culture surrounding municipal employment.

Estrella’s victory therefore represents more than an $853,000 award.

It demonstrates that municipal officials can be forced to defend their conduct before an independent jury—and that political power does not determine what that jury ultimately decides.

Brian Stack and his administration has been facing criticism in the past couple years with allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, pay to play, political corruption, nepotism and much more.

But what happened in this courtroom does not require speculation:

Juan Estrella brought his case before a jury.

Union City defended itself.

The jury heard the evidence.

Union City and its police department were found liable for discrimination.

Brian Stack and Nichelle Luster were unanimously found liable for aiding and abetting it.

And Juan Estrella was awarded at least $853,000—with punitive damages still to be determined.

For an administration accustomed to wielding enormous political influence in Union City, this verdict provides a stark reminder that governmental authority remains subject to the law, the courts and, ultimately, a jury.

Whatever happens politically after this case is for Union City residents to decide.

But inside the courtroom on September 24, 2026, Juan Estrella prevailed.

The post THE JURY DECIDES BRIAN STACK IS LIABLE! appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

El oficial David Tafur declara en el juicio de Juan Estrella contra Union City

El juicio de Juan Estrella contra la Ciudad de Union City está levantando serias preguntas sobre discriminación, disciplina y liderazgo dentro del Departamento de Policía.

Y la jueza Kalimah Ahmad tomó la decisión correcta al permitir que el oficial David Tafur testificara ante el jurado.

Ahora el jurado pudo escuchar directamente al hombre que dice haber escuchado personalmente una declaración muy preocupante de la exjefa de Policía Nichelle Luster.

“YO SÉ LO QUE ESCUCHÉ”

Anteriormente, Estrella había declarado que Tafur le contó que Luster supuestamente había comparado a los dominicanos con “animales” durante un Desfile Dominicano en Union City.

Pero ahora Tafur mismo subió al estrado y declaró bajo juramento.

Según Hudson County View, Tafur dijo que estaba aproximadamente a cinco pies de Luster cuando escuchó el comentario.

Tafur fue claro:

“Yo sé lo que escuché.”

También explicó que no lo reportó en ese momento porque era joven y tenía miedo de poner en peligro su trabajo.

Estas acusaciones son extremadamente serias.

Cualquier comentario degradante contra los dominicanos debe ser condenado.

Ningún jefe de Policía, funcionario público o empleado del gobierno debe hablar de esa manera sobre la comunidad que tiene la responsabilidad de servir.

¿POR QUÉ IMPORTA TANTO EL TESTIMONIO DE TAFUR?

Tafur también habló sobre cómo él y Estrella fueron disciplinados después de participar en el mismo incidente.

Según su testimonio, Tafur recibió una reprimenda verbal mientras que Estrella recibió una suspensión.

Tafur es colombiano.

Estrella es dominicano.

Y Tafur dijo algo muy importante sobre lo que hicieron ambos oficiales:

“Él no hizo nada diferente.”

Entonces la pregunta es sencilla:

¿Por qué dos oficiales involucrados en el mismo incidente recibieron castigos diferentes?

Eso es precisamente parte de lo que Estrella está alegando en este caso: que recibió un trato diferente por ser dominicano.

Union City niega las acusaciones y argumenta que el historial disciplinario de Estrella justificó las diferencias en disciplina y en las decisiones de promoción.

Ahora será el jurado quien decida..

UNION CITY SIGUE HABLANDO DEL HISTORIAL DE ESTRELLA

El abogado defensor de Union City, Phillip Morrow, ha cuestionado repetidamente a Estrella sobre sus problemas disciplinarios anteriores y los acuerdos que firmó.

La Ciudad tiene derecho a presentar esa defensa.

Pero existe otra pregunta que el historial disciplinario de Estrella simplemente no puede contestar:

¿Dijo o no dijo la futura jefa de Policía esas palabras sobre los dominicanos?

El historial disciplinario de Estrella no determina lo que Tafur escuchó.

Tafur declaró que estaba allí.

Declaró que escuchó personalmente el comentario.

Y lo hizo bajo juramento y frente al jurado.

¿Y QUÉ PASA CON EL ALCALDE BRIAN STACK?

El alcalde Brian Stack también es acusado en este caso y ha servido como Director de Seguridad Pública de Union City.

Según testimonios anteriores reportados durante el juicio, Stack indicó que dependía de las recomendaciones del jefe de Policía para las promociones.

Luster, por su parte, declaró que Stack tenía la autoridad final para decidir las promociones y que ella hacía recomendaciones.

Entonces los residentes tienen derecho a preguntar:

¿Quién era realmente responsable?

Si la jefa recomendaba a quién promover y el Director de Seguridad Pública seguía esas recomendaciones, ¿qué tipo de revisión independiente realmente existía?

Estas son preguntas legítimas que los residentes de Union City merecen ver contestadas.

LA JUEZA HIZO BIEN EN PERMITIR ESTE TESTIMONIO

La decisión de la jueza Ahmad permitió que el jurado escuchara directamente a Tafur.

Eso era importante.

No se trata simplemente de Estrella diciendo lo que otra persona supuestamente le contó.

Tafur apareció personalmente.

Juró decir la verdad.

Fue interrogado por ambas partes.

HABLA LA ABOGADA DE ESTRELLA

Cuando la abogada Yasmin Estrella salía del tribunal después del testimonio del oficial David Tafur, dio una declaración a los medios:

“Esperamos que el jurado haya visto lo que debió haberse visto hace mucho tiempo. Como testificó hoy el oficial Tafur, la verdad tenía que decirse, y hoy se dijo en el tribunal y el jurado la escuchó.”

Los medios le preguntaron a la abogada de Estrella:

“¿Qué fue lo que dijo?”

La abogada respondió:

“‘Estos dominicanos son animales.’ Esto es lo que… la jefa Luster… esto es lo que la exjefa de Policía de Union City piensa sobre los dominicanos. Espero que la gente de Union City esté prestando atención a este juicio.”

UNION CITY DEBE PRESTAR ATENCIÓN

Este caso ya no se trata solamente de una promoción a sargento.

Se están haciendo preguntas serias sobre discriminación, disciplina, promociones y liderazgo dentro del Departamento de Policía de Union City.

Un oficial actual de Union City declaró bajo juramento que una mujer que posteriormente llegó a convertirse en jefa de Policía hizo un comentario degradante sobre los dominicanos.

Eso merece atención.

La comunidad dominicana es una parte fundamental de Union City y del Condado de Hudson.

Nadie debe ser tratado como inferior por su nacionalidad.

Y hablar una y otra vez del historial disciplinario de Juan Estrella no hace desaparecer el testimonio de David Tafur.

La Ciudad tiene derecho a defenderse.

Los abogados tienen derecho a cuestionar a los testigos.

Pero los residentes también tienen derecho a exigir respuestas de Nichelle Luster, Brian Stack, el Departamento de Policía y la Ciudad de Union City.

Todavía no existe un veredicto final.

Pero ahora existe una diferencia muy importante:

Juan Estrella ya no es simplemente quien dice lo que Tafur le contó.

David Tafur llegó al tribunal.

Subió al estrado.

Declaró bajo juramento.

Y frente al jurado dijo:

“YO SÉ LO QUE ESCUCHÉ.”

Ahora le corresponde al jurado decidir.

The post JEFA DE LA POLICIA DE UNION CITY DICE “LOS DOMINICANOS SON ANIMALES” appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

Officer David Tafur takes the stand in Juan Estrella’s discrimination trial

The discrimination trial of retired Union City Police Officer Juan Estrella against the City of Union City and other defendants has produced some of its most serious testimony yet.

And Superior Court Judge Kalimah Ahmad made the right decision by allowing current Union City Police Officer David Tafur to testify before the jury.

Before Tafur appeared before the jury, Judge Ahmad conducted an evidentiary hearing concerning proposed testimony from Tafur and another officer. She ultimately permitted Tafur to testify while excluding the other officer’s proposed testimony.

That ruling allowed jurors to hear Tafur’s account directly rather than simply hearing what Estrella said Tafur had previously told him.

“I KNOW WHAT I HEARD”

Earlier in the trial, Estrella testified that Tafur told him that former Union City Police Chief Nichelle Luster had referred to Dominicans as “animals” at a Dominican Day Parade.

Then Tafur himself took the witness stand.

According to Hudson County View’s reporting, Tafur testified under oath that he was approximately five feet away from Luster at a Dominican Day Parade before the COVID-19 pandemic when he heard her equate Dominicans with “animals.”

Tafur stood by his recollection:

“I know what I heard.”

He testified that the parade had not yet begun, making it possible for him to hear the remark. He also explained why he did not report it at the time: He was young and did not want to jeopardize his career.

Tafur further testified that hearing such a remark made him wonder what was being said about other Hispanics.

The allegation is disturbing.

If a jury ultimately finds that a person who rose to become Union City’s chief of police made such a statement, Union City residents deserve answers about how someone holding those views could have reached the highest position in their Police Department.

No community—Dominican or otherwise—should be spoken about that way by a public official entrusted with authority over its residents.

THE DISCIPLINE QUESTION JUST GOT BIGGER

Tafur’s testimony was not limited to Luster’s alleged remark.

He also testified about an incident that involved both himself and Estrella.

According to Tafur, the two officers handled the same incident involving a woman who alleged racial bias after receiving a parking ticket. Tafur testified that he received an oral reprimand while Estrella was suspended.

Tafur is Colombian. Estrella is Dominican.

And Tafur told the jury about their conduct:

“He didn’t do anything different.”

That testimony goes directly to an important question raised by Estrella’s case: Was discipline applied consistently?

Estrella contends that his disciplinary history was used against him to deny him promotion to sergeant while non-Dominican officers were treated differently.

Union City disputes that allegation. The defense maintains that Estrella’s disciplinary record legitimately distinguished him from other officers and has argued that progressive discipline explains why Tafur and Estrella received different penalties.

That is precisely why Tafur’s testimony matters. The jury now has a firsthand witness who participated in one of the incidents being used to compare the treatment of the two officers.

UNION CITY KEEPS RETURNING TO ESTRELLA’S DISCIPLINE

Union City’s defense attorney, Phillip Morrow, has repeatedly examined Estrella’s disciplinary history and settlement agreements.

The defense is entitled to present that evidence, particularly because Union City maintains that discipline—not Estrella’s Dominican national origin—explains why he was bypassed for promotion.

But disciplinary history does not answer a separate and deeply troubling question raised by Tafur’s testimony:

Did the future chief of the Union City Police Department actually make the alleged remark about Dominicans?

Whether Estrella had previous discipline cannot determine whether Tafur heard what he says he heard.

And Tafur did not merely repeat a rumor on the witness stand.

According to the reporting, he testified that he was there, approximately five feet away, and personally heard the remark.

That testimony now belongs before the jury alongside the defense’s evidence.

MAYOR BRIAN STACK ALSO HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

Mayor Brian Stack is not merely a spectator in this case. He is a named defendant and also served as Union City’s Director of Public Safety.

Stack previously testified that he relied upon the police chief’s recommendations concerning promotions.

When questioned about what independent review he conducted concerning Estrella, Stack repeatedly emphasized that he followed the chief’s recommendation.

Luster, meanwhile, testified that Stack was ultimately the authority who decided promotions and that she made recommendations.

That creates an obvious question for Union City residents:

Who was actually accountable for making sure promotion decisions were fair?

If the chief made the recommendation and the Public Safety Director routinely followed it, residents have every right to scrutinize how meaningful the oversight really was.

THIS IS WHY TAFUR NEEDED TO TESTIFY

Judge Ahmad’s decision allowed the jury to hear evidence directly from the person who says he witnessed the alleged remark.

That is exactly where this evidence belongs: in the courtroom, under oath, subject to cross-examination and evaluated by the jury.

Tafur was questioned by both sides.

The defense challenged his credibility and brought up that he is currently on restricted duty and has been the subject of an investigation that was referred back to the municipality.

Tafur nevertheless testified that he has no personal financial interest in Estrella’s lawsuit and expects possible retaliation because of his testimony.

ESTRELLA ATTORNEY SPEAKS

As Attorney Yasmin Estrella was exiting the court after Tafur’s testimony, she released a statement to the media stating,

“Well we are hope the jury saw what should have been seen a long time ago. As Officer Tafur testified today, the truth needed to be said and it was said today in court and the jury heard it.”

The media asked the attorney for Estrella,

“what did he say?” Attorney for Estrella responded,

“These Dominicans are animals, this is what…Chief Luster…this is what, the chief of police, former chief of police from Union City thinks about Dominicans. I hope the people of Union City are watching this trial.”

UNION CITY RESIDENTS SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION

This case is bigger than whether one retired police officer should have received a sergeant’s promotion.

It raises questions about discipline, promotions, national-origin discrimination, accountability and leadership inside the Union City Police Department.

A current Union City police officer has now testified under oath that a woman who later became the department’s chief made a degrading remark about Dominicans.

That allegation should be condemned, not minimized.

Dominicans make up an important part of Union City and Hudson County. No resident should have to wonder whether the people exercising governmental authority over them harbor contempt for their nationality or ethnicity.

And no amount of discussion about Juan Estrella’s old disciplinary record makes Tafur’s testimony disappear.

The defense has every right to challenge Estrella’s allegations and Tafur’s credibility.

But the public has every right to ask hard questions of former Chief Nichelle Luster, Mayor and Public Safety Director Brian Stack, the Union City Police Department, the City of Union City and the attorneys defending the City’s position.

The jury has not yet rendered its verdict.

But one thing has changed dramatically:

The jury no longer has to rely solely on Juan Estrella saying what David Tafur told him.

David Tafur walked into court himself.

He took the oath.

He faced cross-examination.

And he told the jury:

“I know what I heard.”

Now the jury—and the people of Union City—can judge the testimony for themselves.

The post UNION CITY POLICE CHIEF SAID “DOMINICANS ARE ANIMALS” appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

The Juan Estrella v. City of Union City trial has reached a critical moment. Union City and its attorneys are fighting to prevent Union City Police Officer David Tafur from giving testimony that could be extremely damaging to the City’s defense.

According to the City’s own court filing, Tafur is expected to testify that he “was present when Chief Luster made a derogatory comment about Dominicans.” Tafur is also expected to testify about differences between discipline imposed upon him and Juan Estrella. 

This is a discrimination case. Juan Estrella alleges he was passed over for promotion because of his Dominican national origin. If an officer is prepared to testify under oath that a former police chief involved in this controversy made a derogatory statement about Dominicans, the jury deserves to hear him.

Why is the City fighting so hard to keep Tafur off the witness stand?

City attorney Philip Morrow is asking Judge Kalimah Ahmad to prevent Tafur from giving this testimony. The defense argues that the alleged statement was not disclosed during discovery and characterizes Tafur as effectively a “surprise witness” concerning that statement. 

But why should the answer be to silence the witness?

Put Tafur on the stand. Let him take an oath. Let him explain exactly what he heard, when he heard it, where it happened, and who was present.

Then cross-examine him.

Let Nichelle Luster respond.

And most importantly, let the jury decide who is telling the truth.

Instead, Union City is asking the judge to make sure the jury never hears this testimony in the first place.

That should trouble the public.

Then comes the threat of discipline

The City’s own filing attacks Tafur personally and tells the court about his disciplinary history and an Attorney General investigation. Most strikingly, the City’s attorneys tell the judge that Tafur “faces the possibility of a severe disciplinary sanction.” 

The timing and appearance are disturbing.

Here is a current Union City police officer prepared to give testimony potentially harmful to Union City’s defense—and the City’s attorneys are simultaneously reminding the court that this employee could face severe discipline.

According to insiders who have spoken with Tafur, City attorneys also attempted to contact him and tell him that he was personally being represented by the City’s attorneys. Tafur rejected that representation and reportedly viewed those attempts as intimidation.

There are now serious concerns that the City administration and Union City Police Department, including through Chief Walter Laurencio, could use additional disciplinary proceedings against Tafur in retaliation for his willingness to testify.

If government discipline is being used—or threatened—to pressure a witness because of testimony that could damage the government in court, that would be outrageous.

The City’s own argument shows why Tafur matters

Union City itself acknowledges that the ultimate issue remaining for trial is whether Estrella was denied promotion because of his Dominican national origin. 

The defense also acknowledges that Estrella’s disciplinary history is at the center of its explanation for why he was bypassed and that the issue includes whether that stated reason was actually a pretext for discrimination. 

So imagine being a juror.

You are being asked to determine whether national-origin discrimination played a role in a promotional decision, while an active police officer is allegedly prepared to testify that the former chief made a derogatory statement about the very national-origin group at issue.

Why shouldn’t that jury hear what Tafur has to say?

The City’s attorneys can attack his credibility in front of the jury. That is what cross-examination is for.

This is exactly why the public is losing confidence

The optics could hardly be worse.

The City wants potentially damaging testimony excluded. Its attorney attacks the witness’s credibility before he testifies. The City’s filing raises the possibility of severe discipline against that same officer. And now there are allegations of attempts to pressure or intimidate Tafur while he prepares to testify.

Enough.

Union City government and the Union City Police Department should not operate as though employees must choose between protecting their careers and telling the truth in a courtroom.

If Tafur is willing to testify under oath, let him testify.

If his testimony is false, expose it through evidence.

If it is true, the jury deserves to know.

The conduct of the City’s attorneys deserves scrutiny

We are also deeply disturbed by the allegations surrounding City attorney Philip Morrow’s handling of Tafur.

Attorneys are advocates, and aggressive advocacy is part of litigation. But there is a line between aggressively defending a client and improperly interfering with or intimidating a witness.

Anyone who possesses firsthand evidence of unethical conduct should consider submitting that evidence to the appropriate attorney-ethics authorities, the appropriate bar association and allowing them to determine whether professional rules were violated.

Nobody—attorney, police chief, mayor, or municipal government—should be above scrutiny.

Let the jury hear the evidence

Judge Kalimah Ahmad has an important evidentiary decision to make.

Our position is simple:

LET DAVID TAFUR TESTIFY.

Let the City’s lawyers question him.

Let the plaintiff’s lawyers question him.

Let Nichelle Luster defend herself against the allegation.

And then let twelve jurors decide what happened.

We believe the evidence presented by Juan Estrella deserves to reach the jury, and we are confident that when the jury is allowed to hear the complete story, it will ultimately side with the plaintiff.

Union City should stop trying to control what the jury gets to hear and start answering the evidence.

LET TAFUR TESTIFY.

The post LET OFFICER TAFUR TESTIFY — WHAT IS UNION CITY SO AFRAID OF? appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

Union City Police Trial Raises Serious Questions About Who Really Controls Promotions — and Why the Mayor Now Points Back at His Chiefs

UNION CITY, N.J. — We waited to report about this lawsuit. We wanted to obtain a great amount of information to provide a very detailed report with key information.

After weeks of testimony in retired Union City Police Officer Juan Estrella’s discrimination trial, one question has become increasingly difficult for Union City Mayor and Public Safety Director Brian Stack to escape:

Who actually controls promotions in the Union City Police Department?

Listen to the testimony of former Chief Nichelle Luster and several current and former Union City police officers, and the answer repeatedly leads back to Stack.

Listen to Stack himself, however, and responsibility suddenly appears to travel in the opposite direction.

Stack acknowledges that he is the public safety director. He acknowledges reviewing and approving police promotions. He acknowledges signing the Civil Service documents that make those promotions official.

Yet when confronted at trial with questions about why some officers with significant disciplinary histories were promoted while Estrella was bypassed, Stack repeatedly emphasized that he simply relied upon his police chiefs.

That creates one of the most striking contradictions to emerge from this trial.

For decades, Stack has occupied the position at the top of Union City’s public-safety structure. But when the promotion process itself came under scrutiny in a courtroom, his testimony effectively portrayed his role as something far more limited: the official who signs what the chief puts in front of him.

If that characterization is accurate, it raises an obvious question:

What exactly was Stack reviewing and approving?

And if it is not accurate, an even more serious question follows:

Who should ultimately be held accountable for the promotion decisions made under his authority?

IT STARTED WITH JUAN ESTRELLA

Estrella’s battle began publicly in April 2022, when he filed an eight-count lawsuit alleging that then-Police Chief Nichelle Luster had used allegedly bogus or petty disciplinary accusations to interfere with his promotion to sergeant.

Estrella, who is Dominican, alleged that he was bypassed despite reaching a promotable position on the New Jersey Civil Service list.

The original lawsuit contained another allegation that would eventually become extremely important.

Estrella claimed he had been told that Stack would promote him.

His July 2022 amended complaint went considerably further, identifying numerous Union City officers who Estrella alleged had more serious disciplinary histories but nevertheless received promotions.

Four years later, those officers and their records have become a central part of the trial.

The defense maintains there was nothing discriminatory about the decision. Union City has relied in part upon New Jersey Civil Service’s Rule of Three, under which the appointing authority is not necessarily required to promote the highest-ranked candidate.

The city contends Estrella was bypassed because of his disciplinary history and problems following departmental rules—not because he was Dominican.

Estrella’s attorneys have responded with a simple but potentially powerful question:

If discipline made Estrella unsuitable to supervise officers, why did significant discipline apparently not prevent numerous other Union City officers from being promoted?

SERGIO DEROJAS: WHO PROMOTED YOU?

Before the testimony of Ret. Lt. Sergio DeRojas, attorneys and the judge discussed a critical concern with Sergio’s disciplinary history. The discussion lead to question when DeRojas was interviewed during deposition, DeRojas admitted to “sexual assault” toward a former police dispatcher but was subsequently only disciplined for “sexual harassment”. Implicating that the police department, internal affairs and the city deliberately and purposely downgraded the complaint against DeRojas to avoid criminal prosecution.

The judge was concerned over DeRojas verbal admission and the handling of that case and expressed the differences between assault and harassment. Judge also noted DeRojas can still face appropriate prosecution for those actions.

Retired Sgt. Sergio DeRojas acknowledged at trial that he had been suspended at least twice before being promoted.

Plaintiff attorney Ernest Ianetti asked him directly:

Who made the decision to promote him?

DeRojas answered:

“The director of public safety, Brian Stack.”

DeRojas was adamant that he never discussed his promotion with Stack. He described their relationship as friendly but limited.

That distinction matters.

There is no basis from DeRojas’s testimony alone to claim that he personally negotiated a promotion with Stack.

But when asked who made the decision, DeRojas didn’t identify the police chief.

He identified Brian Stack.

DeRojas also acknowledged that he had more disciplinary matters than awards.

RUBEN RODRIGUEZ: 105 DAYS DIDN’T END HIS PROMOTIONAL CAREER

Then came retired Sgt. Ruben Rodriguez.

Rodriguez acknowledged a 105-day suspension for conduct unbecoming before becoming a sergeant.

He also acknowledged two additional suspensions involving neglect of duty and mishandling evidence.

Yet Rodriguez ultimately became a supervisor.

And according to the testimony reported from the trial, Stack, as public safety director, signed off on that promotion.

Again, Rodriguez did not claim he discussed the promotion personally with Stack.

But once again, Stack occupied the position of final governmental approval.

Rodriguez eventually retired after he faced criminal charges for falsifying a police report.

RICHARD “RICHIE” PEREZ

Former Capt. Richard Perez served under multiple police chiefs and received promotions despite having disciplinary history.

Ianetti confronted Perez with the pattern.

Three separate chiefs had recommended him notwithstanding that history.

And who was sitting above those chiefs?

Brian Stack.

Asked whether Stack, as public safety director, signed off on those recommendations and promotions despite Perez’s disciplinary history, Perez answered:

“I believe so.”

Asked whether Stack did so notwithstanding that disciplinary history:

“Correct.”

Perez eventually rose all the way to captain.

JUAN LOACES: A 180-DAY SUSPENSION

Former Lt. Juan Loaces presented an even more dramatic comparison.

Loaces testified about a 180-day suspension stemming from an incident in which he was present when another officer fired a paintball gun at someone from a vehicle.

Loaces disputed personal responsibility for the underlying conduct on the witness stand, although he acknowledged signing a disciplinary settlement containing sustained charges, including conduct unbecoming an officer.

A 180-day suspension nevertheless did not permanently prevent Loaces from moving through the department.

He ultimately became a lieutenant, nd became an ICE officer after retirement for a short period of time. Loaces denied currently being employed by the federal government, however, previous circulating pictures shows Loaces wearing a tactical vest with ICE markings along with other ICE Officers in Newark Airport.

That fact goes directly to one of the questions Estrella’s lawyers are putting before the jury:

How severe did discipline have to become before Union City considered an officer permanently unsuitable for promotion?

And was that standard applied consistently?

WILLIE SIERRA AND THE SAME QUESTION

Former Capt. and Internal Affairs supervisor Willie Sierra testified about the department’s disciplinary records and promotion procedures.

Published coverage of his testimony again identified Stack as having the final say in Union City police promotions.

Sierra’s involvement also brings historical context to the controversy.

Years before Estrella’s lawsuit, Sierra and other Union City officers were involved in separate litigation alleging political retaliation and favoritism involving police promotions.

Sierra ultimately settled his individual case.

The earlier allegations do not prove Estrella’s current national-origin discrimination claim.

But they demonstrate something important:

Arguments about political influence, promotional authority and Brian Stack’s role in Union City police promotions did not begin with Juan Estrella.

They have been raised in litigation before.

THEN CAME GLENN GASTON

Perhaps one of the most troubling disciplinary comparisons presented during the current trial concerns Glenn Gaston.

Gaston acknowledged under oath that he had sustained charges involving untruthfulness concerning an incident in which he was injured while off duty but represented the injury as occurring on duty.

Despite that sustained finding, Gaston continued advancing through the Union City Police Department.

That matters because truthfulness is not an insignificant characteristic for a police officer.

New Jersey’s Brady-Giglio policies specifically recognize that a sustained finding that a law-enforcement employee was untruthful or demonstrated a lack of candor may constitute impeachment information that prosecutors must evaluate for disclosure.

According to an account from an individual who listened to Gaston’s court audio, Gaston additionally acknowledged being subject to Brady-Giglio disclosure/list procedures.

That particular assertion should presently be treated with caution because a publicly available transcript or official prosecutor record independently confirming Gaston’s individual Brady-Giglio status has not been identified.

But there is no need to exaggerate what has already been publicly reported.

Gaston acknowledged a sustained untruthfulness finding under oath.

And he was nevertheless promoted.

That alone presents an obvious comparison with the city’s argument that Estrella’s disciplinary history rendered him unsuitable for supervision.

Gaston is known in the police Department as an “EDP” (Emotional Disturbed Person) according to internal police sources. A term used by officers to describe an individual with psychological concerns.

ESTRELLA’S OWN EVALUATIONS

Then the jury heard about Estrella’s performance.

Lt. Christopher Rengel confirmed an evaluation of Estrella containing no “unacceptable” ratings.

Even more strikingly, Gaston himself had previously written favorably about Estrella.

That evaluation described Estrella as having a great attitude toward the department and police work, good attendance, professional appearance and disposition, and a willingness to complete his responsibilities.

Yet Luster maintained that other information—particularly discipline—caused her to conclude Estrella should not become a supervisor.

Luster testified that disciplinary histories should be considered according to factors including recency, severity and the cumulative record of the officer.

That may be a legitimate management philosophy.

But it becomes far more difficult to understand when placed next to officers who received suspensions of 105 days or 180 days, or a sustained untruthfulness finding, and nevertheless climbed through the ranks.

That is precisely the inconsistency Estrella’s lawyers want the jury to examine.

THEN NICHELLE LUSTER SAID SOMETHING IMPORTANT

When retired Police Chief Luster took the witness stand, the question of authority became much clearer.

She testified that she did not possess final authority over police promotions.

She made recommendations.

Who possessed ultimate authority?

According to Luster:

Brian Stack.

As public safety director, Luster testified, Stack was the ultimate authority who decided which Union City police officers were promoted.

That is not an allegation from a political opponent.

It is reported sworn testimony from the former chief of the police department Stack supervised as public safety director.

And it aligned in significant respects with testimony from other officers identifying Stack as the official who made, approved or had the final say over promotions.

Then Stack took the stand.

And suddenly the responsibility became somebody else’s.

STACK: I JUST RELIED ON THE CHIEF

Stack acknowledged that his responsibilities as public safety director included reviewing and approving police promotions.

He acknowledged signing the documents.

He acknowledged reviewing disciplinary documents that came before him.

But when Ianetti began digging into what Stack actually did when reviewing promotional recommendations, Stack repeatedly returned to essentially the same answer:

“I rely on the recommendation of the chief.”

Stack testified that he could not remember ever rejecting a police chief’s recommendation concerning a suspension or promotion.

Think about the significance of that testimony.

The man occupying the position of public safety director for more than two decades—the official signing promotion documents and possessing formal approval authority—could not identify a promotion recommendation he remembered rejecting.

When Ianetti challenged whether Stack was effectively abandoning his responsibility to independently review recommendations, Stack disagreed.

But when pressed to identify what actual independent review he performed in Estrella’s case, his answer returned to the chief:

“I followed the recommendation of the chief as I’ve done since I became the director of public safety.”

That answer creates a serious accountability problem regardless of which interpretation the jury ultimately accepts.

If Stack exercised genuine discretion, then he cannot simply erase his role by pointing downward at the chief whose recommendation he approved.

If Stack exercised virtually no discretion and automatically approved whatever chiefs recommended, then legitimate questions arise about what meaningful purpose his review and approval served.

Either Stack was the final decision-maker or he was a rubber stamp.

Neither possibility makes his responsibility disappear.

STACK EVEN WANTED ESTRELLA PROMOTED

Stack’s testimony becomes even more complicated regarding Estrella personally.

Stack testified that Luster was extremely firm that Estrella should not become a supervisor because of his disciplinary history.

Stack said he initially wanted Estrella promoted.

He asked Luster to reconsider.

She refused.

Stack ultimately accepted her recommendation.

But Stack also testified that he did not know exactly what Luster reviewed in reaching that decision.

He did not know whether she consulted Estrella’s supervisors.

And when questioned about whether police chiefs historically discussed officers’ disciplinary histories with him when recommending promotions, Stack answered:

“Not that I could remember.”

That is extraordinary in the context of the defense being presented.

Union City says Estrella’s discipline justified bypassing him.

Luster says discipline was an important component of her recommendation.

Yet Stack—the official who approved the ultimate decision—testified that he could not remember chiefs discussing disciplinary histories during other promotions.

The obvious question becomes:

Why did discipline suddenly carry such enormous weight when Juan Estrella reached the promotional list?

That question becomes even more difficult when placed next to DeRojas, Rodriguez, Perez, Loaces and Gaston.

ESTRELLA’S VERSION PUTS STACK DIRECTLY IN THE ROOM

Then Estrella took the stand.

According to Estrella’s sworn testimony, after his disciplinary matters had closed, he approached Luster about becoming sergeant and was told he needed to speak with Stack.

Stack subsequently contacted Estrella’s father and arranged to meet with them.

According to Estrella, Stack told him:

“We all make mistakes. But I’m going to promote you.”

Estrella testified that he questioned Stack to make sure he understood correctly.

Stack allegedly responded:

“Yes, I promise I’m going to promote you.”

Estrella says that promise disappeared after Stack and Luster clashed over his promotion.

According to Estrella’s testimony, Stack later told him he could not promote him because he had argued with Luster about the matter and that Luster had threatened to “go public.”

Estrella testified that Stack told him he would promote him after Luster retired.

Those remain Estrella’s allegations and sworn testimony. The jury must determine credibility and ultimately decide what occurred.

But the testimony raises an unavoidable question.

If Stack truly had essentially no substantive role in promotions beyond following a chief’s recommendation, why would Estrella have been directed to Stack in the first place, and why would Stack allegedly be discussing whether Estrella would be promoted?

EVERY ROAD SEEMS TO LEAD BACK TO STACK

Consider the testimony collectively.

DeRojas identified the director of public safety, Brian Stack, when asked who made his promotion decision.

Rodriguez’s promotion was signed off on by Stack.

Perez acknowledged Stack signed off on promotions despite his disciplinary history.

Sierra’s testimony was reported as identifying Stack as having the final say.

Luster—the former chief herself—testified that Stack was the ultimate authority who decided promotions.

Estrella testified that Stack personally promised him a promotion.

And Stack himself acknowledged that he reviewed and approved promotion recommendations and signed the necessary documents.

Then, when confronted with responsibility for the system, Stack emphasized:

The chief recommended it.

That may ultimately be accepted by the jury as a legitimate explanation.

But it does not erase the contradiction.

For years, promotions went across Stack’s desk.

Stack signed them.

Officers with substantial disciplinary histories advanced through the department while Stack occupied the public-safety position.

Now that one of those promotional decisions is being examined before a jury, Stack’s defense effectively asks the public to believe that the chiefs were making the real decisions and he merely trusted their judgment.

That deserves scrutiny.

THE MYSTERY WITNESS:

This week, the plaintiff identified a potential witness who is reportedly willing to testify that they have firsthand knowledge of former Union City Police Chief Nichelle Luster allegedly making derogatory comments about Dominicans. The defense is attempting to prevent the witness from testifying, while separate allegations have reportedly surfaced that defense attorneys attempted to improperly influence or interfere with the witness. The judge will decide on this matter in the upcoming days.

AUTHORITY WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY?

There is an even broader issue here than Estrella.

Stack has simultaneously served as mayor and public safety director for years.

Yet he acknowledged having no other law-enforcement experience.

Stack’s defense emphasized that he does not run the day-to-day operations of the police department and appropriately relies on experienced police chiefs.

That is reasonable as far as operational policing is concerned.

A mayor should not be deciding how detectives conduct investigations or how patrol officers respond to calls.

But promoting police officers is not routine patrol supervision.

It determines who receives governmental authority, who supervises other officers and who eventually occupies the command structure of a police department.

If Stack reserves formal authority to review and approve those decisions, his accountability cannot logically disappear simply because a police chief made the initial recommendation.

Otherwise, what does “approval” actually mean?

If the answer is merely signing whatever appears on his desk, then perhaps the more fundamental question is why Union City’s political leadership retains that authority at all.

THE CONTRADICTION THE JURY NOW HAS TO CONFRONT

The evidence has not established that every disputed promotion was corrupt.

It has not established that every officer who supported Stack received preferential treatment.

And it has not yet established that Estrella was discriminated against because he is Dominican.

Those are distinctions that must remain clear.

The case is ongoing.

But something important has already happened.

Under oath, witnesses have exposed a system in which responsibility for promotions appears to move depending upon who is answering the question.

Police officers identify Stack.

The former chief identifies Stack.

The documents require Stack’s approval.

Stack acknowledges approving them.

But when the consequences of those decisions are examined, Stack points back toward the police chiefs.

That should concern anyone interested in transparent government.

Political power accompanied by plausible deniability is not meaningful accountability.

If Brian Stack possesses the authority to approve police promotions, then Brian Stack should answer for the promotions he approves.

If he does not actually exercise that authority and simply approves whatever a chief recommends, then Union City should explain why the public safety director’s approval exists in the first place.

He cannot logically occupy both positions simultaneously:

the official powerful enough to approve every promotion, yet somehow too removed from the process to bear responsibility for any of them.

THE DISCIPLINE QUESTION REMAINS

And then there is the fundamental question that started this entire trial.

A 105-day suspension did not necessarily prevent promotion.

A 180-day suspension did not necessarily prevent promotion.

Other officers with multiple disciplinary matters advanced.

A sustained untruthfulness finding did not necessarily end an officer’s promotional career.

Yet Union City maintains that Juan Estrella’s disciplinary history justified denying him a supervisory position.

Maybe the city can persuade the jury that meaningful differences existed between those officers and Estrella.

That is what trials are for.

But after weeks of testimony, Union City cannot reasonably expect the public simply to ignore those comparisons.

Nor should Stack be insulated from scrutiny simply because a police chief’s recommendation preceded his signature.

THIS TRIAL IS STILL GOING

The trial remains ongoing, and Estrella has not yet won his discrimination claim.

The court has already narrowed the litigation, and the jury will ultimately decide whether Estrella proves that national-origin discrimination caused his bypass.

Additional witnesses and evidentiary disputes could also materially affect the record.

That means conclusions about liability must wait.

But accountability does not require waiting for a verdict before asking difficult questions about testimony already given publicly.

The testimony concerning promotions, disciplinary histories and the chain of authority deserves examination regardless of which side ultimately wins.

Because after officer after officer, a former Internal Affairs commander, a former police chief and finally the mayor himself have testified about how this system operated, one question refuses to disappear:

IF BRIAN STACK HAS THE FINAL SIGNATURE, THE FINAL APPROVAL AND THE FORMAL AUTHORITY — WHY DOES RESPONSIBILITY ALWAYS SEEM TO BELONG TO SOMEONE ELSE?

That may ultimately become one of the most important questions to emerge from the Juan Estrella trial.

The post The Lawsuit of the Decade: Ret. Officer Juan Estrella v. Union City & Brian Stack appeared first on Hudson County Truth.

One incident that deserves renewed attention is the abrupt July 2024 resignation of Guy’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Julietta Vogt.

According to reporting by Hudson County View, Vogt submitted a resignation letter that was effective immediately. At the time, she had recently stepped down as Executive Director of the Hudson County Democratic Organization (HCDO), a position she had held since 2018. She also served as Craig Guy’s 2023 campaign manager and later managed Congressman Rob Menendez’s 2024 Democratic primary campaign. (Hudson County View⁠)

The article also reported that Vogt was the second-highest-ranking employee in the County Executive’s Office, behind Chief of Staff Jenny Davis. She had additionally been appointed earlier that year to the Hudson County Schools of Technology Board. Shortly after her resignation, she was replaced on that board as well. (Hudson County View⁠)

Yet despite the significance of her position, the public received virtually no explanation.

The county confirmed only that Vogt had resigned effective immediately. Hudson County View reported that she could not be reached for comment, that her phone appeared disconnected, and that sources indicated she had also departed from her HCDO role. Craig Guy did not immediately respond to the publication’s request for comment at the time. (Hudson County View⁠)

That leaves taxpayers with legitimate questions:

• Why did one of the County Executive’s closest advisers resign so abruptly?
• Why did the resignation coincide with her departure from the HCDO?
• Was the resignation entirely voluntary?
• Were there any internal issues that the public should know about?
• Why was there never a detailed public explanation from the County Executive’s Office?

These are not accusations. They are reasonable questions about the departure of a senior public official whose salary was paid by taxpayers.

Public confidence depends on openness. When a high-ranking official leaves without explanation, silence often creates more speculation than transparency ever would.

If the Guy administration truly wants to distinguish itself as one committed to transparency, then transparency should not apply only to convenient moments. It should also apply when senior staff members unexpectedly resign.

The public deserves more than a one-sentence confirmation that someone has left. Taxpayers deserve an explanation consistent with the promises of open government.

Transparency is not a campaign slogan.

It is a commitment to answer difficult questions—even when the answers may be uncomfortable.

The post Transparency Means Answering Questions, Not Avoiding Them appeared first on Hudson County Truth.